Television?s ?talking heads? share a symbiotic relationship
much more important, to them at least, than politics and/or
ideology. This relationship can properly be described as an
airborne disease attacking healthy debate within the body
politic.
Consider the following names and try to determine what they have
in common: Al Franken, Brit Hume, Ann Coulter, Bob
Woodward, Dan Rather, Ed Meese, Dick Morris, Eleanor Clift,
Governor George Pataki, Henry Kissinger, Fred Barnes, George
McGovern, James Baker, Jesse Jackson, Jesse Ventura, Laura
Ingraham, Leslie Stahl, Leon Panetta, Mikhail Gorbachev, Morton
Kondracke, Newt Gingrich, President Clinton, Tom Brokaw, and
Sean Hannity. The answer has nothing to do with
politics or ideology. They have something much more important in
common- their opinions are for rent. To rub elbows with the
above-mentioned pundits, and too many others to list here, one
need only pay a visit to The Allen Agency, Inc.
and have a checkbook at the ready.
The Washington Speaker's
Bureau is another "promoter" that boasts many of the same
speakers- and more. It offers speaker and/or subject choices. It
even has a section that highlights speakers that can be rented
for $10,000 or under.
The problem is that none of the individuals listed above would
command even a fraction of the fees they receive if there were
no conflict- real or imagined. That's why even the most rational
solution to a problem is debated (yelled about) in a "pro" and
"con" manner when no such differences should exist.
The constant need to create or perpetuate controversy is best
evidenced by the simplistic red/blue distinction on television's
political maps without examining differences in a methodical and
analytical manner that could go a long way to healing at least
some of the rifts in our society. What we end up with is a
deafening drumbeat of a red/blue, black/white,
patriotic/unpatriotic, moral/immoral divide instead of an
understanding of a complicated society whose existence is based
on the ability of its people to set aside differences as much as
possible and assimilate into a coherent whole.
The desire for divisiveness in the country rests with more than
just the television personalities. Many groups make comfortable
incomes in perpetuating and exacerbating differences. It is when
both the groups and personalities join forces and their messages
are fed to the public on a daily basis through television that
the danger of a false reality begins to take hold of the
national psyche.
The mere fact that money is exchanged for speeches and/or
appearances should not necessarily lead to a dismissal of the
individual speaking. However, it should highlight the need to
look at television's designated "experts" with a healthy dose of
skepticism.
After all, if appearances are determined by fees, then it's not
a huge leap to wonder if fees can also determine what is said by
speakers at agenda infomercials masked as serious discussions
and/or debates.
About the author:
A moderate to progressive look at politics in these radically
regressive times.
|
